Poll: When do you feel lethal force is justified?

This is a discussion on Poll: When do you feel lethal force is justified? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Those choosing to carry a firearm or other tool have agreed to accept the responsibility of deciding when to apply lethal force to the commission ...

Poll: When do you feel lethal force is justified?

Those choosing to carry a firearm or other tool have agreed to accept the responsibility of deciding when to apply lethal force to the commission of crimes we witness. Irrespective of the laws that may apply to you, consider the following ...

Question: Using the rough scale of crimes noted above, at what point would you feel that your use of lethal force would be justified in order to stop the situation from going any further?

Responses may vary quite a bit, based on your experiences, training, how you were raised. Please attempt to answer without regard to the legality of actions you may perform. This poll is intended to see what people think, irrespective of what the State deems appropriate.

Note that the responses are private. If you feel like expanding on your answer, feel free to comment below.

Not to be too technical but the following is the justification for the use of deadly force in WI: too prevent death and/or great bodily harm to you or another person. Great bodily harm is defined as the permanent loss of function of a major limb, eye, etc.

IMO, no crime (in and of itself) warrants deadly force. Unless the crime is happening TO YOU, RIGHT NOW, and has reasonably put you in fear for your life/grave bodily injury, then you shouldn't kill. The State, after determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is the only entity that can kill AFTER the crime. (Or am I misunderstanding the question?)

A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

Bodily harm to myself or others. However,brandishing if people are stealing my stuff is OK with me. If they then come after me,then of course,bodily harm to myself or others. Some states,though,will tell you a gun pretty much has to be pointed at your head before you can even draw.

The question simply asks folks to specify at what point one feels justified to employ lethal force to stop a crime. Of course, there's leveraging the threat of lethal force (ie, drawing), and there's the actual use of it (ie, shooting). The primary point of the question is to explore what people think WITHOUT the state's limitations being any guideline or factor.

You may personally feel that many of those poll selections were reason to use lethal force. In Missouri you better be able to convince the prosecutor or jury that you reasonably believed you or another were in imminent fear of severe injury, death, rape, sodomy, kidnapping, or severe injury from robbery, burglary or arson. If not there is a high probability that you will be prosecuted.

"Assault & battery against someone else" was my vote - my assumption is that the "someone else" is a loved one. I assume most who voted for "assault & battery against you" would agree if the person being attacked were your spouse/child/parent/etc...

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had a right to choose: his own." - John Galt, from Atlas Shrugged